The Great Outdoors Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who love being outdoors enjoying nature and wilderness, and learning about the required skills and equipment. Join them; it only takes a minute:

They also look similar. The Fjällräven sleeping bag has a bit of fur on the top, but besides that and the difference in fill power and weight I don't note a difference. And as the EN/ISO rating is the same, I think the difference in fill power does not matter. (Right?)

That is just an outrageous price for a sleeping bag.
– StrongBadDec 23 '18 at 20:01

Shouldn't you show us more examples to compare it with? Else we might ask "why is the Marmot so cheap?"
– Martin FDec 24 '18 at 20:38

@MartinF I've added another example. To show that it's Fjällräven which is super expensive. It seems as if MARMOT is also quite cheap (not sure about the quality - I'm just talking about the price here)
– Martin ThomaDec 25 '18 at 15:54

I’m sure the name is a major factor but there is a difference between 650 and 800 down.
– mreff555Dec 25 '18 at 16:16

1

Unless there is a large difference in fabric weights used, there is no way the Marmot is comparable. To have lower fill power AND 200g LESS total weight (you'd expect the opposite since fill weight would need to be larger), the Fjällräven should be much warmer so one of those EN/ISO ratings is off. I note their site has an error, too, since the specs table lists 700 cuin, not 800.
– topshotDec 26 '18 at 13:21

2 Answers
2

Part of that is because the brand has a good reputation and will make sure that all they sell are up to brand standards, part is that they guaranty their products to perform as given for the products.

Part of the extra money will go to special features which may or may not show, like fur or a better class of zipper.

And it may be that you are comparing sleeping bags that not really match the same specifications, but the differences mentioned in some comments should still not justify the price difference unless one of them was a top known brand and the other not.

But I have always chosen for a cheaper brand or unbranded item that performs as required, not paying the big brand premium.

That is not unreasonably more expensive. Besides just higher profit margins, there are a lot of other factors going into the price besides "cost of goods".

Chief among these factors is the higher and more specialized/qualified labor costs, leading to higher construction quality and durability. There is also field testing - more of which costs much more. The same argument applies to the individual raw material suppliers - there are premium and budget qualities and suppliers for most materials. This recursively adds up to the final price.

The specifications you copied do not say anything about the quality of the outer fabric (how breathable and water proof), the kind of stitching, zippers, additional padding at the chest, etc.

This is similar to how a similarly specced laptop from Macbook-Pro/Thinkpad T or X series/Elitebook will cost a lot more than a budget one, even by the same manufacturer (Lenovo Thinkpad T vs Ideapad).

In practical terms, if the intended use is only occasional, the cheaper variant might suffice. If however, one wants the item to perform equally reliably when it is a few years old, the more expensive is a better variant. For instance, something made for long-term regular military use at high altitude will necessarily be of significantly higher quality (and thus, more expensive) than something to be used by a hobbyist using the gear for a week every year.

All that being said, without a personal inspection of the goods, it is still possible you're being ripped off. Or there's a discount or clearance sale.

As a counter example, look up Siachen sleeping bags (-40 celsius) by Gipfel, an Indian manufacturer, costing over EUR 350. Being an Indian manufacturer (with a lower cost base), one would expect it to be a lot cheaper than the EU based ones. But this is still more than the MARMOT.